Pardon me - Mr President

[Chillicothe]

Hey, as long as we are playing 'Perry Mason' (old American TV series)...let's do one more little throw-it-on-the-wall gig.

Namely, we all read that Jeffery Clark's home was raided by the FBI and laptops and cell-phones were confiscated. Clearly, some judge was persuaded there was probably cause to believe a crime had been committed.

And just as clearly .....even more so.....the DOJ thinks Clark could be involved in some bad juju.

So let's say just for the story.....they arrest him, indict him on some serious stuff where he get disbarred in his profession, but also 'iron-barred' in a federal pen. Life goes bad for Jeff. And family.

But, with bigger fish to fry.....could they offer him immunity in exchange for testimony? Testimony about who said what, when, and to who.

I ain't no lawyer....but I've watched 'em on the telly......and that seems to be a dance-step that could be used. No?

The cake is baking.

IMHO

 

[lennypartiv]

Why would they want a pre-emptive pardon?

Because they know persecution is coming.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Ah, that pardon business is intriguing.
In my humble opinion, it is a 'tell'.
There is a sense of guilt there, or so it seems.
Why would they want a pre-emptive pardon?
Did they think they had committed a crime?
What crime?

Is there a possibility of the crime - "Conspiracy to Obstruct"?

I saw this recent headline, unrelated to January 6th "Kennewick Man Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding"
...but it indicates that Conspiracy to Obstruct could be bullet in the DOJ gun. So to speak. After all, as I understand it, you really don't need to actually obstruct, or even try to obstruct. You just need to conspire to obstruct.

So who then would be inside that conspiracy....if there was one?
And if there was one......would a pre-emptive pardon be useful to a conspirator, or co-conspirator?

I dunno.
I ain't a lawyer.

I suspect that it would depend on how far the conspiracy went. Some parts of it would surely be covered by the first amendment.
But other parts, such as buying equipment and so on would not be.

i also suspect that you could get a lawyer to argue it either way if you paid them.